Make a Donation

Subscribe to Our Feeds

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0902 Wednesday, 26 May 1999.
[1] From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 13:14:04 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 10.0899 Re: Hamlet, the secret doctrine
[2] From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: Hamlet's esitating
[3] From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: Hamlet, the secret doctrine
[4] From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: Ophelia
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carol Barton <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 13:14:04 EDT
Subject: 10.0899 Re: Hamlet, the secret doctrine
Comment: Re: SHK 10.0899 Re: Hamlet, the secret doctrine
Fort en bras, gentlemen, strong in arms-fort en brah, not fort in
BRASS!!! (Besides-neither of them sounds the least bit, proleptically
or otherwise, like "Wynton Marsalis"!!
Carol Barton
>>Meanwhile,
>>what do you make of the fact that Fortinbras's name offers a proleptic
>>link to the greatest jazz trumpeter of our century?
>>
>>T. Hawkes
>Surely every jazz trumpeter ever would like to think he had a such a
>mouth? Wouldn't a better reference be to Ulysses in T&C-"Time
>proleptically hath a [satchel] on his back"-or am I missing something?
>Perplexed In His Works,
>Robin Hamilton
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Hamlet's esitating
Lucia wrote:
>Claudius is showed ready, though his praying, to be sent to
>hell. Thus all too logical or too formal reasonings about souls'
>destiny are showed fool.
Unfortunately, I so don't understand what you mean by 'soul'.
Lucia, how does your distinction between heaven and hell reflect on the
exchange between Hamlet and Polonius:
P: Will you go out into the air?
H: Into my grave?
P: (Aside)Into air the grave is into the grave..."
>From the last remark, I am inclined to think P is the one who is
>insane, though not mad.
If we allow 'heaven' is 'air' and 'hell' is 'grave' must we not identity
'body' and 'soul'?
Yours in the light,
Dana
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Hamlet, the secret doctrine
Robin thanks for finding your way through my numerous spelling errors.
Time being so precious I seldom edit.
Robin wrote:
>>From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>>
>>only one man has
>>ever "conceived", that being Zeus to "conceived" Minerva of his
>>mind.
>Oh, dear, what about Sin from Satan's head (admittedly an echo of Z&M)
>in PARADISE LOST?
..."
Are you suggesting that Milton influenced Shakespeare?
I was trying to note that the Minerva influence was conspicuous by
absence in S.
I will try to follow your clues about Bruno, Pico, and Ficino.
As for your reference to Sydney, I believe that a Polar pair may be made
of Sydney's Arcadia and Seymour's Shepard's calendar, which refers to
the Shepard's of Arcardia archetype.
I don't want to bore any one rehashing the work of Henry Lincoln from
Holy Blood Holy Grail; however, I use the Flammel work in my alchemical
research which helps one derive the Florence influences by a French path
to the Paris heresy trials following the condemnation of 1277.
As a question of influence, even in the case of Bruno, Ficino, and Pico,
there is nothing new under the sun.
Yours in the truth,
Dana
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dana Wilson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 25 May 1999 11:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Ophelia
You wrote:
>Has anyone mentioned that the fact that she is carrying the
>'remembrances' when Hamlet bumps into her is itself an element in
>making him suspicious?
My reading of the scene in question is that she returns some token which
"accompanied" his words. This does not rule a necklace brooch or ring
which she might have worn at all times.
Yours in the way,
Dana